The Anderson intelligencer. [volume] (Anderson Court House, S.C.) 1860-1914, 1887-12-22
One of the big fights of the session in

One of the big fights of the session in
both houses this year has been the Bill
to reapportion the representation in the
House of Representatives among the
several Counties of the State according
to the census taken by the United States
government in 1880. The effect of the
change would have been to give Green
Vile, Spartanburg, Laurens, Edgefeld,
Marlboro, Sumter and Beaufort each one
additional member in the Legislature,
while the loss would have come from
Charleston, Richland, Aiken and Hamp.
ton. The Bill passed the House by a
majority of three votes. The Anderson
delegation in the House voted for the
Bill. In the Senate Senator Murray, for
the Judiciary Committee, submitted an
unfayorable report, taking the ground
that the Bill was unconstitutional, for
the reasons set forth in the report, as
follows:
That prior to the Amendment 10 the
Constitution in 1856, there was no war
rant of law allowing an apportionment OF
Representatives of the State on the basis
of the enumeration made by the United
States census. The manner then propid-
ed by law directed the enumeration to
be made under State laws in every tenth
wear from 1875. By the Amendment of
1886, (page 499, this was changed. 1t
was therein prescribed that an enumera-
ton of the inhabitants of the State for
the purpose of apportionment should he
made in the year 1891, aud il every tenth
year thereafter, in such manner as should
be by law directed. This was substi.
tute for the then law and contemplated
the reapportment from time to time at
regularly recurring intervals from 1891.
/, But in order that the State might be
spared the expense and disadvantage ofa
special State census if the same was un.
necessary, proviso was put to the Act,
providing that the General Assembly
might at any time in its discretion adopt
the Immediately preceding United States
census as true and correct enumeration,
and make the eapportionment according to
said enumeration. That is to say, the
Act having directed an appotionment in
1891, and at subsequent times on the
basis of State enumeration, goes on to
provide that at any Of these times the Leg.
islature may, if it 80 decide, adopt the
United States census Immediately preced.
ing as correct enumeration, instead of
the one to be made by the State, and
make the apportionment according to
said United States census enumeration,
instead of the States enumeration.
This is made absolutely clear by the
second proviso of the amendment, which
prescribes that the amendment shall not
prevent the Legislature from providing
for an enumeration and apportionment
prior to 1891 in the manner then provid-
ed by law, to wit by State census.
Your Committee therefore find that the
Constitution as amended requires an.
enumeration and apportionment to be
made in 1891 and every tenth year there.
after, with the right reserved to the Leg.
islature to make snct apportionment in
1891, OF in any tenth year thereafter, on
the basis of the fext Immediately pre-.
ceding United States census, but with the
further right reserved to the Legislature
that if an enumeration and apportion-
ment is desired prior to 1891, then it can
be made only by State census.
They are, therefore, of opinion that the
Legislature has no right prior to 1891 to
apportion according to the United States
census, and that the proposed Bill is un.
constitutional.
They further find that in the United
States census of 1880, there is no emu
meration of the inhabitants of Berkely
County, for the reason that that County
was not then in existence. An appor-
tionment must be based on mathematical
calculation, and not on any surmise or
approximation 1tmust be an absolute
arithmetical re llS. As this is impossi.
Bile under the United States census of
1880, itappears 10 the Committee as an
additional proof, that in adopting the
amendment of 1886, the Legislature
never contemplated doing that which,
from the very nature of the case could
not be done, to wit: apportion on the
basis of the United States census of 1880,
when, as was veil known, that census did
not give the data upon which to appor-
ton the Representatives from two of the
cou mites of the State.
After full discussion in the Senate,
the Bill was defeated by vote of 10
to 16.